Nanjil Mugilan vs The State represented by its,
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 20.04.2026
Pronounced on: 02.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
and WP.MP.Crl.No.230 of 2025
Nanjil Mugilan
S/o.Dhanapal,
Door No.01/02-70, Melcolony,
Mathaiyankuttai, Navappatti, Salem-636 452. .. Petitioner
vs
1.The State represented by its,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Prison-IV) Department, Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Prisons,
Gandhi Irwin Road, CMDA Building,
nd
2 Tower, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison at Salem,
Hasthampatty, Salem-7. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ or Direction to call for the records in Impugned order in
st
Letter No.9437861/Prison-IV/2025-2 dated 05.06.2025 passed by the 1
respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
respondents to release forthwith the petitioner’s Father/convict namely
Mr.Dhanapal S/o. Angamuthu (PID No.33633) and may pass further or
other order may deem fit and necessary.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
for Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla
For Respondent :Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah
assisted by
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by
Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate
ORDER
(Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The petitioner is the son of a life convict (in short ‘convict’), who
had been implicated in Crime No. 1350 of 1997 in Omalur Police Station.
An FIR was taken on file and final report filed in SC No. 34 of 1999, that
had been tried by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem
under Sections 148, 341, 302 IPC (5 counts) and under Section 3 of the
Explosives Substances Act, 1908. The date of conviction is 20.10.2004,
wherein the following sentences were imposed:-
PENAL PROVISION PUNISHMENT
148 of IPC One Year Rigorous Imprisonment
341 of IPC One Month Simple Imprisonment
302 (Five Counts) Life Imprisonment under each
count consecutively and Fine
Rs.5,000/- I/d. two years Rigorous
Imprisonment
3 of Explosive Substances Act One-Year Rigorous Imprisonment
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
2. The appeal filed by the convict in Crl.A.No.15 of 2007 was
dismissed by this Court on 01.02.2007 and while confirming the trial
court’s judgment, the Court reiterated that the sentences would run
concurrently. Pursuant to order dated 01.02.2007, the convict has been
imprisoned in Central Prison, Chennai and his further appeal before the
Supreme Court has also been dismissed. As on date, he has been
incarcerated for more than 21 years.
3. According to Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel, who
appears for Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla, learned counsel on record for
petitioner, the convict has undergone substantial reformation during the
period of incarceration. He has been granted leave several times without
escort and no untoward incident has occurred.
4. Hence, the petitioner had moved the authorities with a
representation seeking premature release of the convict. On account of
the long pendency of the representation, W.P.No. 37931 of 2024 was
filed, that came to be ordered on 08.01.2025 directing the respondents to
pass appropriate orders on merits, within three months from date of
receipt of a copy of that order. As a consequence, impugned order dated
05.06.2025 has come to be passed, rejecting representation dated
3/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
11.11.2024 citing the conditions in G.O. (Ms). No.64, Home (PRI-IV)
Dept., dated 01.02.2018 (in short ‘GO’).
5. The primary argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is
this. The rejection of plea for remission is based on paragraph 5 (II) (3) of
the G.O. referring to Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973.
Section 435 sets out certain adumbrated conditions wherein concurrence
would have to be sought and obtained from the Central Government for
premature release of a convict, one of the conditions being the visiting of
punishment under a Central Enactment. In this case, the convict had been
convicted for a period of one year RI for offences under the Explosives
Substances Act, 1908.
6. However, since the convict has already served the sentence in
relation to the offence under the Explosives Substances Act, learned
Counsel would argue that there was no further need to invoke paragraph 5
(II) (3) of the G.O, and to this extent, the reason for rejection is incorrect
in law.
7. The petitioner relies on the following judgments:-
(i) Thenthamizhan alias Kathiravan alias Dakshinamoorthi v. State of
Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home
(Prison IV) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 and An-
1
other
1 2010 (2) MLJ (Criminal) 1077
4/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
2
(ii)State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. V. P.Veera Bhaarathi
(iii) Murthy and others v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Omalur
3
Police Station
(iv) Kokila v. The State rep. by its, The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Home (Prison-IV) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.-
4
George, Chennai-600 009 and others
5
(v) Muniyammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
6
(vi) N.Perumalammal v. The State and Ors.
7
(vii) Ilamayil v. State and Ors.
(viii) C.Amutha v. Home Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat,
8
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 and others
(ix) C.Amutha v. Shankar, Tamil Nadu Jail Service, Superintendent of
9
Police, Salem Central Prison, Salem District and another
(x) The Superintendent of Police, Salem Central Prison, Salem and
10
another. C.Amutha
11
(xi) Union of India v. V.Sriharan @ Murugan and Ors.
12
(xii) Union of India v. V.Sriharan @ Murugan & others
13
(xiii) Home Secretary (Prison) & Ors. V. H.Nilofer Nisha
8. In fine, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the
present case does not attract the requirement under Section 435 of the
CrPC as the period of sentence under the Explosives Substances Act had
already been undergone.
2 2019 (2) Scale 225
3 (Crl.A.Nos.1395 of 2004 etc. batch dated 01.02.2007)
(WP.No.18934 of 2025 dated 23.07.2025)
4
(WP(MD)No.16540 of 2019 dated 08.11.2022)
5
6 (WP(MD)No.26313 of 2022 dated 25.08.2023)
7 (WP(MD)No.22805 of 2022 dated 14.11.2022)
8 2018 (3) MWN (Cr.) 342 (DB)
9 2021 (3) CTC 721
10 ( SLP(Crl.)No.6170 of 2021 dated 27.08.2021)
11 (WP(Crl.)No.48 of 2014 dated 02.12.2015)
12 ( WP(Crl.)No.48 of 2014 dated 06.09.2018)
2020 (1) ALT (Crl) 263
13
5/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
9. We had sought the assistance of Mr. Hasan Mohammed Jinnah,
learned Public Prosecutor and have heard him as well as
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
10. The gravamen of the prosecution’s case rests on Section 435
CrPC, as per which, concurrence of the Central Government is to be
obtained in three circumstances being, the commission of (i) an offence
under investigation by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or any
other agency empowered to investigate an offence under a Central Act,
(ii) an offence that involves misappropriation/destruction of/damage to,
any property belonging to the Central Government or (iii) an offence
committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.
11. In the present case, the situations under Clause (a) and (c) do
not apply and it is clause (b) of Section 435 CrPC that is invoked.
According to the State, as the convict has been charged with offences
relating to Central enactments, in this case, the Explosives Substances
Act, the concurrence of the Central Government would have to be
obtained.
12. Moreover, the G.O issued by the State Government contains a
bar in respect of those cases where Section 435 stands attracted. The State
6/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
has thus, as a policy, decided to exclude the cases of those convicts who
attract the rigour of Section 435 of the CrPC, from the benefit of
Government Orders providing for remission.
13. Our attention is drawn to paragraph 5(III)(3) of G.O. 64, which
specifies the condition that the cases where remission is sought, ‘should
not come under Section 435 of CrPC’ . Hence the very commission and
conviction for offences as enumerated under Section 435 of CrPC would
debar the concerned convict from invoking the benefit of plea of
premature release.
14. The prosecution would rely upon the following judgments:-
14
1. In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
15
2. Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh
3. Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary of Gov-
16
ernment, Home (Prison IV) Department & Ors. V. Mariammal
4. Govt. of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary of Govt., Home
17
(Prison IV) Department & Ors. v. Mariammal
18
5. Maru Ram v. Union of India and Others
19
6. Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others
20
7. State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. P.Veera Bhaarathi
8. Rajan v. Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu and
21
Others
2025 INSC 239
14
15 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 788
16 (Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016)
17 SLP(Crl.)No.6572 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016)
18 (1981) 1 SCC 107
19 (2006) 8 SCC 161
20 (2019) 18 SCC 71
(2019) 14 SCC 114
21
7/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
22
9. S.Nalini Srikaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
23
10.State of Haryana and Another v. Jai Singh
11.Bhuvaneshvari v. The State represented by its; The Secretary to
Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
24
and another
12.Kokila v. The State rep. by its, The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Home (Prison-IV) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.-
25
George, Chennai-600 009 and others
26
13.Union of India v. V.Sriharan alias Murugan and others
14.K.V.Komarasamy v. The Government of Tamil Nadu represented
by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home (Prison-IV)
27
Department Fort St. George, Madras 600 001and others
28
15.Kartik Subramaniam v. Union of India & Another
15. We have heard all learned counsel in detail and perused the
material papers and case law. Our decision in the matter is as follows. The
primary facts in respect of the incarceration of the convict and his request
for premature release have been captured in the paragraphs supra and are
admitted.
16. The legal issue that arises for consideration relates to the
interpretation of G.O.(Ms)No.64 dated 01.02.2018 in the context of
Section 435 of the CrPC that reads as under:
22 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 3033
23 (2003) 9 SCC 114
24 (WP.No.35049 of 2023 dated 07.08.2024)
25 (WP.No.18934 of 2025 dated 23.07.2025)
26 (2016) 7 SCC 1
27 (WP.No.16702 of 2019 dated 18.02.2022)
(WP.(Crl.)No.1642/2020 & Crl.M.A.No.13947/2020 dated 25.01.2021)
28
8/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
‘ 435. State Government to act after consultation with
Central Government in certain cases.
(1)The powers conferred by Sections 432 and 433 upon the
State Government to remit or commute a sentence, in any
case where the sentence is for an offence –
(a)which was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Es-
tablishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Es-
tablishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency
empowered to make investigation into an offence under any
Central Act other than this Code, or
(b)which involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or
damage to, any property belonging to the Central Govern-
ment, or
(c)which was committed by a person in the service of the
Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duty, shall not be exercised by the
State Government except after consultation with the Central
Government.
(2)No order of suspension, remission or commutation of sen-
tences passed by the State Government in relation to a per-
son, who has been convicted of offences, some of which re-
late to matters to which the executive power of the Union ex-
tends, and who has been sentenced to separate terms of im-
prisonment which are to run concurrently, shall have effect
unless an order for the suspension, remission or commuta-
tion, as the case may be, of such sentences has also been
made by the Central Government in relation to the offences
committed by such person with regard to matters to which
the executive power of the Union extends.’
17. Chapter XXXII of the Cr.PC deals with ‘Execution,
Suspension, Remission and Commutation of Sentences’ and Part E
comprising Sections 432 to 435, deals with Suspension, Remission and
Commutation. Section 432 deals with the power to suspend or remit
9/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
sentences, Section 433 with the power to commute sentences, Section
433A places restrictions on the powers of remission or commutation in
certain cases, and Section 434 deals with the concurrent power of the
Central Government in case of death sentences.
18. Section 435 requires the State Government to act in
consultation with the Central Government in considering the grant of
premature release in certain cases, namely, where the convict has engaged
in (i) an offence under a Central Act (ii) an offence that involves
misappropriation or destruction to Central Government’s property or (iii)
an offence committed by a Central Government employee in discharge of
his official duty. In the present case, Section 435 has been pressed into
service by the State, as one of the offences with which the convict is
charged relates to the Explosive Substances Act.
19. The petitioner has relied on decisions of this Court in
29
K.V.Komarasamy and Thenthamizhan alias Kathiravan alias
30
Dakshinamoorthi wherein, while referring to Section 435 of the CrPC,
the Court had found that the period of conviction relating to the offences
under the Central Act had been served and hence the condition under
Section 435 was not relevant any longer.
20. So too in the present case, the conviction under the Explosive
29 Foot Note Supra (27)
Foot Note Supra (1)
30
10/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
Substances Act was for a period of one year and the petitioner had long
served that. To clarify, the date of conviction is 20.10.2004 and the First
Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem had imposed sentence
concurrently under the IPC and Explosive Substances Act, the latter for a
period of one year.
21. The convict has hence served the sentence under the Explosive
Substances Act on 20.10.2005, and the interpretation of Section 435
canvassed by the Petitioner is that the provision ceases to have any
consequence in circumstances where the sentence has been served, as in
the present case. However, Mr.Jinnah has drawn attention to the fact that
one of the ineligibilities under G.O.No.64 is a case attracting Section 435
of the CrPC, simplicitor.
22. According to him, the condition is to be understood literally,
and the effect of the Government Order is to exclude from the purview of
premature release, all cases where Section 435 would come into play,
whether the sentence under the Central Act had been served or not. To put
it differently, once an offence had been committed that would come under
one of the three clauses of Section 435(1), then the convict would be
debarred from the benefit of premature release. We will now proceed to
test this argument.
11/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
31
23. Maru Ram is the locus classicus on the issue of premature
release, wherein the vires of Section 433A was upheld. In Epuru
32 33
Sudhakar , the ratio of Maru Ram stood affirmed in favour of
premature release, where granted judiciously.
34
24. In Mariammal’s case, the Supreme Court was considering a
challenge by the State of Tamil Nadu, to the grant of remission. In fact,
the aspect of remission had lost its relevance in that case, as that convict
had been set at liberty at the time when the matter was heard by the
Supreme Court.
25. However, the Court, while noting G.O.(Ms)No.873 dated
14.09.2006, G.O.(Ms)No.1326 dated 12.09.2007 and G.O.(Ms)No.1155
dated 11.09.2008, directed the State to issue a fresh Circular keeping in
mind Section 433A of the Cr.P.C. and the judgments of the Supreme
35 36 37
Court in Epuru Sudhakar , Maru Ram and Sriharan alias Murugan .
G.O.No.64/18 has been issued as a consequence of that judgement.
38
26. In Rajan’s case, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to
early release granted to that convict. In that matter, the prisoner was tried
31 Foot Note Supra (18)
32 Foot Note Supra (19)
33 Foot Note Supra (18)
34 Foot Note Supra (16)
35 Foot Note Supra (19)
36 Foot Note Supra (18)
37 Foot Note Supra (12)
Foot Note Supra (21)
38
12/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
for both offences under the IPC and the Arms Act, and G.O.(D)No.6033,
in the context of which the plea for remission had been considered,
contained a condition similar to G.O.64, as in the present case. However,
the Court noted that Section 435 would not be relevant as the sentence
awarded for those offences had been completed by that time and the plea
for remission was hence considered limited to IPC offences only. The
ratio in Rajan’s case thus supports the first argument of the Petitioner in
full.
39
27. In S.Nalini Srikaran , the question was whether G.O.
(Ms)No.873, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 14.09.2006 that
carved out a classification between life convicts that fell within and
outside the scope of Section 435, is a reasonable classification to protect
the interests of society. The specific condition in the aforesaid
Government Order reads ‘that their cases do not come under section 435
Criminal Procedure Code’ .
28. The question was answered in the affirmative, the Court
concluding that ‘ . . . . The classification brought in between the life
convicts falling within the scope of Section 435 Cr.P.C. and the life
convicts falling outside the scope of Section 435 Cr.P.C. is a reasonable
classification to protect the interest of the Society since the nature of the
39 Foot Note Supra (22)
13/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
offence also plays a major role in considering the case of premature
release of the convicts by exercising the remission powers of the
Government.’
40
29. S.Nalini Srikaran was carried to the Supreme Court and a
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with Section 435 in the
following terms:
‘213. There is one more provision, namely, Section 435
(2) CrPC which needs to be considered at this stage. It is
possible that in a given case the accused may be convicted
and sentenced for different offences, in respect of some of
which the Executive Power of the Union may extend and to
the rest the Executive Power of the State may extend. Since
the Executive Power either of the Union or the State is
offence specific, both shall be appropriate Governments in
respect of respective offence or offences to which the
Executive Power of the respective Government extends. For
instance, an offender may be sentenced for an offence
punishable under an enactment relatable to subject under
List I of the Constitution and additionally under the Indian
Penal Code. Such eventuality is taken care of by sub-section
(2) of Section 435 and it is stipulated that even if the State
Government in its capacity as an appropriate Government in
relation to an offence to which the Executive Power of the
State Government extends, were to order suspension,
remission or commutation of sentence in respect of such
offence, the order of the State Government shall not have
effect unless an appropriate order of suspension, remission or
commutation is also passed by the Central Government in
relation to the offence(s) with respect to which Executive
Power of the Union extends. Relevant to note that it is not
with respect to a specific offence that both the Central
Government and State Government have concurrent power
but if the offender is sentenced on two different counts, both
Foot Note Supra (22)
40
14/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
could be the appropriate Governments in respect of that
offence to which the respective Executive Power extends.
214. ……….
215. In the instant case as the order passed by this
Court in State v. Nalini [(1999) 5 SCC 253], the respondent
convicts were acquitted of the offences punishable
under Sections 3(3), 3(4) and 5 of the TADA Act. Their
conviction under various Central laws like the Explosive
Substances Act, the Passport Act, the Foreigners Act and the
Wireless Telegraphy Act were all for lesser terms which
sentences, as on the date, stand undergone. Consequently,
there is no reason or occasion to seek any remission in or
commutation of sentences on those counts. The only sentence
remaining is one under Section 302 IPC which is life
imprisonment. It was submitted by Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,
learned Senior Advocate that Section 302 IPC falls in
Chapter XVI of IPC relating to offences affecting the human
body. In his submission, Sections 299 to 377 IPC involve
matters directly related to “public order” which are covered
by List II Entry 1. It being in the exclusive executive domain
of the State Government, the State Government would be the
appropriate Government. It was further submitted that
assuming Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC are
relatable to Entry 1 of List III being part of the Indian Penal
Code itself, then the issue may arise whether the Central
Government or the State Government shall be the
appropriate Government and resort has to be taken to
provisions of Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution to
resolve the issue.’
30. The conclusion of the Supreme Court at paragraph 215 is
directly on point, wherein the Supreme Court holds that the assessment of
a plea for remission is dependent on the sentence relating to the specific
offence relatable to Section 435 of the CrPC. In other words, the State is
required, as on the date of considering the plea, to note only the sentence
15/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
awarded for the offence relatable to Section 435, in this case, to the
offence under the Explosive Substances Act. Since this sentence has been
long served, the question of the same standing in the way of considering
the plea for remission will not arise.
41
31. This question has also been considered in Jaisingh’s case
where the State of Haryana had challenged premature release granted to a
convict who took benefit of Notification dated 14.08.1995. The aforesaid
Notification excluded convicts guilty of certain enumerated offences,
such as rape, dowry death, abduction and murder of a child below 14
years, offences coming under Sections 121 to 130 IPC, persons sentenced
under NDPS, TADA, Foreigners Act, Passport Act, Detention laws and
violation of jail manual (in short, ‘enumerated offence’), from its benefit.
32. Since the convict in that case had been found guilty of offence
under Section 376 IPC, an enumerated offence, he became ineligible for
remission and approached the Court questioning the classification of the
offences for denying remission. Considering the ratio of various cases
42
including Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration , the Court held that the
classification of offences on the basis of which remission was considered,
was justified. Relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:-
41 Foot Note Supra (23)
42 AIR (1978) SC 1675
16/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
“10. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn. [(1978) 4 SCC 494], this
Court upheld the validity of a classification based on the
gravity of the offence.
11. From the above observations of this Court, it is clear that
the gravity of the offence can form the basis of a valid
classification if the object of such classification is to grant or
not to grant remission.
12. Having come to the conclusion that the gravity of the
offence can be the basis for a valid classification, we will
now consider whether the offences excluded from the
impugned notification can be said to be such offences which
have been wrongly excluded from the benefit of remission.
We notice that the convicts who have been excluded from the
benefit of the said notification, are those convicts who have
been sentenced for offences of rape, dowry death, abduction
and murder of a child below 14 years, offences coming
under Sections 121 to 130 IPC, dacoity, robbery etc. These
are the offences for which the Code has prescribed the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment extending up to life,
therefore, from the very nature of the sentence which the
offence entails, the said offences can be categorised as grave
offences, therefore, they can be aptly classified as grave
offences, which classification will be a valid classification for
the purpose of deciding whether the persons who have
committed such offences should be granted remission or not.
On this basis, we are of the opinion that the State
Government having decided not to grant remission to these
offenders/offences which carry life imprisonment, should not
be granted remission, is justified in doing so.
13. Similarly, the offences under the NDPS and the TADA
Acts, apart from carrying heavy penal sentences are offences
which could be termed as offences having serious adverse
effect on the society, cognizance of which is required to be
taken by the State while granting remission, therefore, they
can also be classified as offences which should be kept out of
the purview of remission.
14. The offences enumerated in Sections 121 to 130 IPC are
the offences against the State, though some of them may not
17/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
be punishable with life imprisonment, still taking into
consideration the nature of offence which undermines the
security of the State, in our opinion, can be classified for
exclusion from the benefit of remission.
15. Again the offences under the Foreigners Act, the Passport
Act, the Official Secrets Act also being offences against the
State, they can be classified as offences which will not be
entitled to the benefit of remission. The persons who have
indulged in the breach of mandate of the jail manual can also
be classified as the offenders who should not be granted the
incentive of remission because of their conduct during the
period of their conviction. Therefore, we are of the opinion
that the offences excluded from the benefit of remission under
the impugned notification have been properly classified
which classification, in our opinion, is a valid classification
for the purpose of making them ineligible for the grant of
remission.”
33. We do not believe that this judgment has any impact on the
present matter, and the issue for resolution before us is something else
altogether. It is not the specific condition in G.O.(Ms)No.64 that is in
challenge before us, but the interpretation thereof by the State. The
question is whether reference to Section 435 in the G.O., remains a hurdle
even if the sentence for the offence relatable to Section 435, has been
served, and our conclusion is in the negative, drawing support from the
judgments cited supra.
34. Moreover, the condition relating to Section 435 that is found in
G.O.64, has been modified by the State in the subsequent Government
Order, G.O.(Ms).No.430 dated 11.08.2023 wherein the conditions in
clause 5 (II)(e & f) states as follows:-
18/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
“e) That their cases should not come under section
435(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
f) The cases of prisoners whose conviction and sen-
tence comes under the purview of section 435(2) of Cr.P.C.
can be considered for premature release, if the period of
such sentence has been undergone by the prisoners.”
35. Hence, the line of judgments referred to in the paragraphs supra
and interpreting Section 435 to mean that the consent of the Centre is
required only if the tenure of sentence for the offence under the Central
Act is still current, has been accepted by the State. In such circumstances,
we are of the view that the condition in G.O.(Ms).No.64 too, must be
similarly understood. To do so otherwise would be contrary to the explicit
intention of the provision, and the understanding thereof by the State, as
evident from the subsequent Government Orders.
36. We thus allow this Writ Petition setting aside the impugned
order and remitting the matter to the authorities for reconsideration in
light of the observations in this order. Let orders be passed, as aforesaid,
within a period of four (4) from the date of uploading of this order on the
portal of this Court. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
37. A footnote. The Supreme Court passed judgment on 13.04.2026
in Surendra @ Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP Crl.Diary No.28783
of 2024) and a short synopsis is as follows.
38. The order of the Allahabad High Court was under challenge on
19/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
confirming conviction for charges under Section 302 read with Sections
149 and 148 of the IPC and consequently sentence of life imprisonment
awarded to Surendra . When the matter was taken up for hearing, that
appellant had been granted bail in pursuance of an order passed on
10.01.2024 by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.165 of
2016 in Ganesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the High Court had
issued directions to release convicts on bail in the event their applications
for pre-mature release had been kept pending for more than 6 months.
39. At paragraph 4, conflicting views taken by the Benches of the
High Court have been noted, and we reproduce paragraph 4 below:
4. It was informed in the State’s affidavit dated
06.09.2024 that the full Bench of the High Court’s
Lucknow bench had taken cognizance of the correctness of
the directions issued in Ganesh (Supra), and therefore, in
the case of Ambrish Kumar Verma vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1915 of 2024),
after considering the same, it was held that the power
of remission is only retained by the appropriate authority.
The Division Bench could not have issued any general
direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrates for releasing
the convicts on bail without any orders passed in the
pending appeals of such convicts before the High Court or
by the Competent Courts. In the interregnum, however,
prior to the judgment of the Full Bench in Ambrish Kumar
(Supra), many convicts were released on bail in
furtherance to the directions in Ganesh (Supra) by the
respective Chief Judicial Magistrates. Since direction to
take back the accused into custody was not issued by the
Full Bench in Ambrish Kumar (Supra) and the order
of Ganesh (Supra) though not found as good law, however,
the position was required to be reversed by the High Court
20/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
itself.
40. Pursuant to directions issued, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed a
compliance affidavit annexing a list of 158 prisoners who had been
released as their early release applications had been pending for more
than 6 months.
41. The Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of the judgment in Surendra
@ Sunda notes that five mechanisms for pre-mature release were being
followed in the State of Uttar Pradesh. They are (i) Uttar Pradesh
Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, (ii) Section 432 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Para 180 of U.P. Jail Manual, 2022,
(iii) Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Para 177,
178, 179 of U.P. Jail Manual, 2022, (iv) Article 161 of the Constitution
of India along with filters formulated by State in Standing Police made in
2018 as amended in 2021 and 2022 and (v) General Mercy Petition
under Article 161 of the Constitution of India.
42. The above series of events paved the way for more petitions
from convicts who were eligible for grant of early release, and the relief
sought by the convicts were by way of intervention and directions
seeking protection from re-arrest until a decision on their remission
applications was passed.
43. The Supreme Court sought jail-wise particulars in respect of
21/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
the details of prisoners who had completed 14 years of sentence, and the
compliance affidavit indicated the large number of prisoners whose
applications for remission were pending at various stages. Vide a daily
order dated 04.03.2005 the State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to develop
a software to implement judgment dated 18.02.2025 of the Supreme
Court in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re . That order reads as
follows:
“9. At this stage, we may note here that the National
Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has formulated a
Standard Operating Procedure on legal assistance,
operationalisation, and co-ordination in improving the
process of premature release, parole, furlough of prisoners,
2022 (for short, ‘the SOP’). The SOP has been formulated
as per the directions issued by this Court in Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 4358-59 of 2021 in the case of Kadir v.
State of Uttar Pradesh. The SOP contemplates prison
superintendents of all the prisons preparing a list of all life
convicts and other convicts who will be entitled to be
considered for premature release in immediate four months
as per the eligibility provided under the state policy. It is
thus apparent that after the preparation of a list of all
life convicts and other convicts who will be entitled to be
considered for premature release, the said list must be
regularly forwarded by the prison superintendents to the
appropriate Government so that the case of premature
release of such convicts is considered by the appropriate
Government. Since we are on the SOP made by the NALSA,
we may note here that the SOP provides for appointing an
advocate for the purposes of challenging the order refusing
to grant permanent remission. We request NALSA to
consider incorporating in the SOP the requirement of
bringing to the notice of the convict the fact that the
convicts have the liberty to challenge the order of rejection
of grant of premature release.
22/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
44. As a result, the ‘ E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module ’
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘ software’ ) has been developed and the
salient features are as follows:
(i) The process for premature release of convicts is
automatically commenced by identifying the prisoners who
are eligible for premature release, four months in advance;
(ii) The prisoner/guardian receives routine updates
regarding the progress of his/her application, at each stage
of the process, through automated alerts via SMS and
WhatsApp;
(iii) The physical movement of files is eliminated by
uploading the PDF / scanned files to the online platform
during the pilot stage of implementation. It is envisioned
that once the infrastructure and training is in place, at a
later stage, this would migrate to an automated paperless
online system;
(iv) The procedural delay at each stage/level of the
process is sought to be curtailed by enforcing timelines
upon the respective stakeholders, along with a short grace
period to meet unforeseen exigencies. Further, based on the
inputs of the Court, an alert system has been implemented
for each stakeholder with different colour coding for
process undertaken within the time period prescribed, and
for the grace period;
(v) It is proposed to provide for interconnectivity of
data of the prisoner available with the Jail (Prisoner
Identification Number), Police Station (FIR), and Courts
(Case Number Record) so as to automate data-sharing;
(vi) Accountability has been fixed upon each
stakeholder through digital signatures and linking of login
ID of the officers concerned in the interest of transparency;
(vii) There is centralised monitoring and processing
update dashboard for the competent authorities to monitor
the stakeholders and track the time taken by each
stakeholder, for generating quarterly reports, to identify
delays, and to trigger remedial actions.
23/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
45. A pilot project for the implementation of the software is on-
going presently in the State of Uttar Pradesh and in order to
operationalize the pilot project, the following directions had been issued.
(i) The State Government shall provide the following
necessary human resources, including but not limited to:
i. two computer operators at the Central Jail, Agra; ii.
one computer operator at the District Jail, Lucknow; iii. one
computer operator at all range offices; iv. three computer
operators at Prison Headquarter level in the concerned
branch;
v. three computer operators at the State Government
level in the concerned branch and
vi. two technical experts with domain knowledge in
computer applications to supervise and assist the work of the
above-mentioned computer operators and co-ordinate with
the NIC in case of any technical issues.
(ii) The aforementioned computer operators shall
exclusively be tasked with the implementation of the
Processing Module as their responsibility.
(iii) The State government shall provide computers
and other infrastructural / hardware requirements of the
aforementioned computer operators and technical experts
and facilitate their working;
(iv) The NIC and the State shall within a time period
of three weeks, together set up a team of officers, and assign
one suitable person as the Nodal officer who shall impart
training to the officials and stakeholders for effective
operation of the software. Such training shall be imparted
with representation of the District Legal Services Authority
and State Legal Services Authority;
(v) The computer operators as mentioned in direction
(i) shall be engaged within the next four weeks and the first
training session and initiation of the pilot project of the
Processing Module shall be undertaken within a period of
four weeks at Central Jail, Agra and District Jail, Lucknow;
(vi) In case any further directions are necessary to
facilitate the pilot project of implementation of the
Processing Module, liberty is granted to file an application
24/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
in that regard.
(vii) The State of Uttar Pradesh shall make all
necessary logistical arrangements for the pilot project and
ensure its smooth operation. The Principal Secretary
(Prisons) and the Director General (Prisons) shall oversee
such implementation.
(viii) The State Legal Services Authority shall also set-
up a committee within a period of four weeks, which shall
co-ordinate with the State and respective stakeholders to
steer the implementation of the pilot project. If the State
Legal Services Authority deems it necessary, it may request a
Hon’ble retired judge of the High Court having an interest in
the cause to monitor the due implementation of the software,
on pro bono basis. Furthermore, if the committee or the
respective Hon’ble retd. Judge has any recommendations,
they may be placed before the Registry of this Court, at
which point the matter shall be listed for further directions.
46. In conclusion, the Supreme Court has directed the Registry to
circulate order dated 13.04.2026 to all other States in order that similar
initiatives are taken. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has, in an event
convened on 27.05.2026, also launched the ‘ E-Prisons Early Release
Processing Module ’ and this Court seizes this opportunity to enable the
implementation of the Module in the prisons in the State of Tamil Nadu
as well. As a first step, the prisons at Puzhal will be taken up as a pilot
project for implementation of the software.
47. The Registrar (IT) is directed to convene a meeting of the
stakeholders/authorities as required for proper implementation of the
software including the personnel mentioned in the judgment of the
Supreme Court dated 13.04.2026, within two (2) weeks from today and a
25/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
status report be placed before this Bench within a week thereafter
confirming the readiness of the Module for implementation in the prisons
at Puzhal.
48. List on 29.06.2026 under the caption ‘for reporting
compliance’.
[A.S.M, J.] [S.M, J.]
02.06.2026
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes
sl/vs/ssm
To
1.The State represented by its,
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Prison-IV) Department, Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Prisons,
Gandhi Irwin Road, CMDA Building,
nd
2 Tower, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison at Salem,
Hasthampatty, Salem-7.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
26/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )
2026:MHC:1840
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
sl/vs/ssm
7
W.P.Crl.No.486 of 2025
And WP.MP.Crl.No.230 of 2025
02.06.2026
27/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2026 06:42:50 pm )